Mr. McCarthy was a Marine Corps officer who served his country faithfully and patriotically. As a senator, he staunchly defended the United States against communism.

Records revealed after the end of the Cold War indicate he was correct. Mr. McCarthy was vehemently attacked by the left wing in this country, primarily by Democrats, who continue to attack him.

Mr. Clinton was a draft dodger who signed an executive order authorizing the sale of nuclear secrets to communist China. An impeached president, he risked America's national security for campaign contributions. He was embraced by the left wing, primarily Democrats.

To compare the two is a travesty. Gen. McPeak owes the United States and the memory of Mr. McCarthy an apology.

Here's a woman with mountains of cash, and no ticket. If she had a ticket the Spirit of God would be speaking to her and telling her that Eckhart Tolle, while not strictly a heretic, is nonetheless lost and teaching heresy.

Oprah is doing an online webcast-seminar with Mr. Tolle, teaching heresy. Here's an excerpt from her latest Book Club selection, and the text book for the seminar,

Don’t get attached to any one word. You can substitute 'Christ' for presence, if that is more meaningful to you. Christ is your God-essence or the Self, as it is sometimes called in the East. The only difference between Christ and presence is that Christ refers to your indwelling divinity regardless of whether you are conscious of it or not, whereas presence means your awakened divinity or God-essence.

--Eckhart TolleThe New Earth

Here's a little perspective on Oprah's situation. Eckhart's as well. And anyone one else seeking worldly wealth, power, and influence...

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

--Mark 8:36

It won't matter how much good she does in this life with her money, power, OR influence. If she doesn't have a ticket, she won't get in no matter HOW wide open Jesus swung the gates.

Men like Murtha should be made to pay for the damage they do to the reputations of men and women who faithfully perform the duties they swore an oath to perform; not for themselves, like Murtha Inc., but for the country they love.

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

Revelation 6:6

The price of rice has skyrocketed because of rising fuel and fertilizer cost, not to mention the damage to crops from disease, and pests, as well as the conversion of farm land to industrial land.

How ironic is this statement from the Jakarta Post...?

We should further reduce our dependence on imports

Hence the title of the Jakarta Post's article, "First fuel, now rice."

Astoundingly-- and I didn't know this prior to tonight's research --most rice is eaten in the country where it was grown. Only about 5% of a nation's total rice production is exported. Wow!

The price of wheat is up. The price of corn is up. And all the commodities that rely on these grains. Everything is going up.

How about this quote from The Daily Times of Pakistan,

[E]xporters cite three reasons for the price increase in the local market. Firstly, this year a 5 to 6 percent shortage... in rice production globally. Secondly, some countries are using food grain to make bio fuel, and thirdly, rice smuggling is also affecting local prices.

That's right! Rice smuggling!

American's have it SO easy! I buy rice all the time, but then I make considerably MORE than the average person living in Karachi, or Bangalore, or Phenom Pen. And I'm struggling! But my struggle is nothing compared to the struggle of farmers in Vietnam, Thailand, North Korea, or India-- that's farmers, forget the unemployed! My life is far better in terms of both need AND want fulfillment. My struggle is geared toward maintaining a specific life style, theirs is geared toward life! My struggle is geared toward avoiding a life on the street, or in a van down by the river... paying the bills so I can watch Battlestar Galactica! My struggle is no struggle at all compared to starving children in the Sudan; in sub-Saharan Africa.

I know everything comes and goes in cycles, just like global warming. But I also know that nothing ever drops back to what it was in terms of price, or the effort involved in earning enough to pay said price. Everything goes up, and nothing-- in this respect --comes down. Depending on how much we make, the price is either easier or harder to bear.

But a time is coming when EVERYONE will want for the basic necessities of life. Luxuries will be spared. Who, then, is going to buy caviar if they can't even afford rice?

"(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him. The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans. From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. ... He refused to be defined by others and Dr. Asa Hilliard also refused to be defined by others. The government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the Klan, white supremacy is clearly in charge, but Asa, like Jesus, refused to be defined by an oppressive government because Asa got his identity from an Omnipotent God."

Yet he'll be defended near universally by the Left, AND Barack "Twenty Years Unmoving" Obama.

That notwithstanding, the chaos all this is sowing in the democrat primaries leading up to Denver hasn't escaped the notice of SOME observers; Liberal Media may be waking up, but Liberals in general seem oblivious still. Check out this frightening cover photo...

[Click on the photo to read the cover text]

Hillary is exercising the "Scorched Earth" option, and Barack in pedaling the same ol' same old "I'm Black, You're Not" brand of 'civil-dialog.' One's a cracked closet-door bigot, and the other's a bona fide liar. McCain? He's too cozy with the enemies of American sovereignty, liberty... and too cozy with all the wrong people.

I related in a previous post the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven-- near universally disagreed upon by commenters. And in light of a discussion now going on at Dan's place, I'm taking the occasion of this discussion to answer a few points here as to just what is the Gospel, and to 'separate the kingdoms' if you will between what Jesus taught and what He expects of us as His followers.

Jesus said,

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

--John 14:15

In context, Jesus began by telling His disciples that in His father's house are many mansions, and that He now goes to prepare a place for them. He tells them He is "the way, the truth, and the life" and that no man comes to the Father, but by/through Him [In John 10 Jesus told the crowd "I am the door of the sheep." The door by which all His sheep must pass through. Simple enough]. Phillip then asks Jesus to show them the father, to which Jesus seems to shake His head in wonder and says, 'have I been this long with you and STILL you don't see it?' He then says,

Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

--verse 11

Jesus then tells them that He's sending them a comforter, the Holy Spirit, to teach them all things, and bring all things to their remembrance, everything He had said to them.

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

--Verses 23-26

So what are His words, His sayings, His commandments? It's the totality of His father's message to His disciples. All of it. Which makes all of it important. But there is an over-riding theme, and that is "believe in me and Him who sent me." But believe what specifically? That He healed the sick? raised the dead? what? Taught a good sermon or two on how to live Godly? What was man's greatest need that Jesus came to fulfill?

To free them from the power and coming judgment of their sin.

God Himself uttered the first prophecy in Genesis 3:15. Jesus. For if all Jesus came for was to teach us how to live and relate to one another, why did He have to die? He could have taught us all we needed and ascended into heaven. He did many miracles to demonstrate who He was. So why the cross?

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up

--John 3:14

What is it about the crucifixion and Moses' brazen serpent that links them?

And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

Numbers 21:9

The serpent, or rather, Sin was lifted up that anyone who looked upon it [demonstrating faith] would live. Jesus likewise was lifted up as Sin,

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

--2 Corinthians 5:21

Jesus came, according to His own words, for one reason,

For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

--Luke 19:10

That was His primary purpose. To find us and save us who are lost in sin.

But this by no means negates the importance of the Sermon on the Mount. We must put that sermon into perspective. Jesus knew why He came, and He knew His message would be rejected. And in the rejection the fulfillment of His purpose on Earth.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them,

"This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."

--Luke 4:18-21

This is a direct, though incomplete quote of Isaiah 61:1-9

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified. And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations. And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves. For your shame ye shall have double; and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them. For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed.

But notice where Jesus stopped: "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord..." He separates the "acceptable year" from "the day of vengeance." He makes distinction between them. The Jews see Isaiah's prophecy as a whole, undivided by nearly two millennia, prophecy. Naturally, those who believed on Him expected the second part as well. But when He clearly told them He must die at the hands of evil men, they rejected Him. They saw a conquering king, but we, in hindsight see the suffering Messiah first, to be followed by the conquering King.

Jesus knew from the beginning He would not be accepted as their Messiah. But He had to work His father's will as though He would be accepted. How could a just God, after all, judge sinful men if He did not give them all He said he would... to preach liberty to the captives, etc... the Kingdom of Heaven, as promised, was delivered. All they had to do was accept Him as King. Jesus demonstrated the Kingdom of Heaven by demonstrating the power of God to heal the leper, the blind, the lame, the halt, the demon possessed. Said Nicodemus,

We know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 3:2

Jesus' immediate and [in hindsight] unambiguous reply,

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

But wait a minute! Jesus is out there preaching the kingdom of God! And now he tells Nicodemus he can't see it unless he's born again!?

Here then is the primacy of Jesus' command,

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you...

--Matthew 28:19-20

In order:

1) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations2) baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost3) teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you

The Gospel Dan puts forth neglects the winning of souls, and jumps straight to the Sermon on the mount and the truncated prophecy of Isaiah 61, thereby teaching everyone to live as though they were IN the Kingdom of God, when Jesus himself said they must FIRST be born again. MUST be born again.

The Kingdom of God is in our hearts, put there by the Holy Spirit who, assuming we surrender daily to His leading, sanctifies us over time. We are made righteous the moment we receive the Holy Spirit, but we are sanctified over time. It is true that some Christians are holier than others, but this is not an attitude they affect, it is the result of their continued surrender to the ministry of the Holy Spirit in their lives. That doesn't make the likes of say, Billy Graham any more righteous. Only more holy... closer to what God wants from all of us: to be conformed to the image of His son [Romans 8:9].

To neglect the Gospel which is, as I have oft repeated,

Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures

1 Corinthians 15:3-4

...is to put the cart before the horse. You cannot see the Kingdom of God [in your heart and in your life] unless you are FIRST born again. It is pointless to teach people the sermon on the mount as THE way to live and not give them the equipment needed to apply that WAY in their lives. Without the empowering of the Holy Spirit they will fail. The condition of their soul before the throne of God must FIRST be addressed. They must be born again. You must be born again.

No one is perfect. If you are a sinner, God's not asking you to be perfect. All He's asking is that you accept the payment for you sin, in His Son Jesus Christ's sacrifice. Open the door of your heart and let the Holy Spirit come in; let the Holy Spirit do the work of transforming you from a child of darkness into a child of Light. The speed with which the transformation in your life will occur, is wholly dependent upon how much control over your daily life you give the Holy Spirit which now dwells within you. Cling to your own will and that transformation will be slow, and you won't see any appreciable difference between who you were before receiving Christ and after.

It is, therefore, quite and evidently clear that Salvation MUST come first before anything else. by all means, feed and clothe the poor; as a Christian that is one of your many duties, but do not neglect the Gospel. If you do nothing else, slip a gospel tract into the pocket of the coat you're planning to give to that homeless man you saw yesterday; maybe a pocket-sized New Testament. DO something beside just handing them a sandwich. You will surely provide for a temporary hunger. But without the Gospel, and through which, an opportunity to receive Christ, you do nothing to assuage the eternal hunger for forgiveness they will surely suffer in hell if you choose to NOT present the Gospel.

Go ye into all the world [wherever in the world you find yourself], and preach the gospel to every creature.

Over at Dan's place, a discussion was brewing about what duty Christians are to perform.

Dan and some others suggest "working for peace, and righting social injustices."

I and others contended, that our responsibility lies in soul winning, PRIMARILY. Change the heart [that's BibleSpeak for "soul"], and you change minds. Change enough people's minds and hearts and Peace and Social Injustices take care of themselves.

Our responsibility toward the Gospel is as Jesus related to the pharisees in Matthew 21:28-31

What think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father?

We are to work in our father's vineyards. And what does that work entail? Bringing in a harvest? In terms of what you can expect for failing to work in the vineyard, Ezekiel 3:18 speaks volumes:

When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

If you stand before God as a blood bought child of God with the blood of the wicked on your hands will you lose your salvation? Absolutely not. But you may very well lose rewards, and stand ashamed before His throne.

Obama has worked very hard to label whites as "typical" racists, throwing his own grandmother under the bus... twice. According to this story, that HASN'T made much of a splash in national media, Obama's chiding of white America appears to be a case of the pot calling the kettle "WHITE."

How will Obama heal a nation this sick? This racially diseased? Especially when he defends race-bashing pastors?

He won't. Having Obama as our nation's first black president will not make this nation less racially charged. I suspect things will only get worse.

We have our first black Supreme Court Justice in the Honorable Clarence Thomas, despite Democrats. We have had our first Black Secretary of State in General Colin Powell, followed by Condolezza Rice. But for many Democrats AND blacks these two aren't "black enough."

Liberal media, and Al Sharpton leveled that charge on Barack when it looked like he had no chance. The LA Times even called him "Barack the Magic Negro." Sharpton said Barack wasn't "down for the struggle." But now that he looks like he could win it's "how dare you make racist slurs against our man Barack!" What hypocrites!

And now Barack gets a pass on calling his grandmother a "typical white person," to mean: racist... to mean the typical white person is a racist. But please pay no attention to Jeremiah Wright or those middle school children who brutally beat Sarah Kreager. How dare us!!!

[...us white folk, that is...]

Now Media, Democrats, AND Barack Obama want us to believe that finally THE man has arrived who can change the face of race and the nature of racial discourse in America?

Just six-months ago Barack wasn't black enough.... according to Blacks!

There's just too much hypocrisy in Left Field, and unless Barack makes a sincere and honest effort to stop calling kettles white, there can be no sincere and honest easing and healing of racial tensions in America.

Well .. the veneer has been penetrated, hasn't it? So much for the exalted "trans-racial" election. Looks like its more of the same old same old.

With a few days under out belt, Obama's sermon from the mount – his speech on race – was little more than an eloquent rewrite of so many speeches and rants we've heard in the past ... look at the speech again and a nuanced reading will show you that Obama was laying the blame for Jeremiah Wright squarely at the feet of white people. Wright, in Obama's eyes, is merely a response – if a rather harsh one – to the crimes of white America.

So now we see the real Barack Obama. Whatever is wrong with black America can be traced back to the actions of whites.

Then we have Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis. The Obama campaign tried to hide it for a while --- but when the media got wind of the fact that access to the thesis had been shut off by Obama, the ploy was over. The thesis is 95 pages long ... and we haven't gone through it yet ... but an initial glance shows once again that whatever problems faced by black American are traceable to --- you guessed it – whites. Now I've read a synopsis which says that our possible future First Lady wrote that America was founded on "crime and hatred" and that whites are "ineradicably racist." I want to see those words for myself in the thesis .. but they do sound like they could come from someone who was never proud of her country until her husband saw success in his race for the presidency. Now I don't know about you, but I would not like the idea of a First Lady who says that America was founded on "crime and hatred."

I have a thought about Barack's membership in Chicago's Trinity United Church of (Hate) Christ. As I understand it, Obama joined this church just about the time he was ginning up a political career. Perhaps Obama thought himself too white. Raised in large part by a white couple (his grandparents), attending prestigious private schools – where my sister was teaching, by the way – then Harvard, the Harvard law review – and all of that white stuff. Maybe he felt he needed to shore up his black credentials – get a little street-cred --- so off we go to join the dominant black church. I suspect that Obama was searching for black votes at this church more than he was searching for God. You can see why someone would search for votes in an atmosphere of hatred – but God?

It's been a helluva week ... the American people see Barack Obama a bit more clearly. They now see him as a man who can construct a bizarre moral equivalence between someone like Geraldine Ferraro and Jeremiah Wright .. someone who suggests that Obama's race has been a help in the campaign, and someone who shouts "God Damn America" from the pulpit and blames white America for AIDS. In all of this many don't see a man deserving of the Oval Office.

Neal Boortz, March 21, 2008

Maybe he doesn't hate America. Maybe he doesn't hate white people. But he has used rhetoric that is indeed hateful toward both. Perhaps he's engaging in the practice of condemning "they/them". "They" have done you harm! He keeps it general in order to rant on in the most fiery manner. He rails on while the people get stoked, yet he's never accusing any one person, only "them". It's pretty safe. Condemn the ambiguous "them" and people will "know" who you're talking about. Each person will have their own version in their minds and as a result be in agreement. And perhaps not intended, but an easy out is provided by not being specific. So he engages in these "truths" about black struggle and the congregation eats it up, but when called on it, he and his enablers can run on any one of many possible meanings that will absolve him of anything really terrible. It's genius really, evil genius.

And there it is in a nutshell: looking to blame the external and not the internal-- that which lies in his own heart. Obama and Michelle, and every other congregant at Trinity United would be better served by tuning an ear to Bill Cosby, rather than the kind of hate that comes from the likes of Jeremiah Wright. Whether or not Rev Wright and his people knew it or not, Wright was nonetheless commanded and obligated to "Feed my Sheep." But what exactly has he fed them, spiritually speaking? It hasn't been "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

Obama was laying the blame for Jeremiah Wright squarely at the feet of white people.

So much so, that he threw his white Grandmother under the bus and defended his black, equally bigoted, pastor.

This whole campaign is beginning to sicken me. I really don't care WHAT color the man's skin is, but personally speaking, Obama's lack of experience, his continued defense of Wright, and his "shame on you" castigation of White America shows me that this man does not deserve to be President of the United States of America.

But before anyone accuses me of being racist, you had best check that hat at the door. I am as likely to vote for a black man any other provided he espouses the ideals that made this nation great, despite its imperfections. If his name is on the ballot come November, I'll vote Keyes.

There's a season for all things, that’s what the bible says, but that don't change the fact of what’s right and what’s wrong. I know that now. Some men 've said that the right and wrong of a thing depends on a mans point of view or the circumstances of his upbringin'. That may or may not be true, I don't know. I was never one for believin' in fairy tales. I reckon there’s some truth in those too. Even a grain of sand casts a shadow, you jus’ gotta git down close enough t' see it. And I guess that’s how I feel 'bout the right and wrong of things.

The bible says that David was a righteous man. It also says he kilt a man to fulfill his own lust, and God called him guilty of murder. But God also said David was a man after His own heart, and the apple of His eye, so I reckon a man can do all manner of evil and still find fergiveness in God. But don't misunnerstand me, Missus Henry, I don't liken myself another David, though I reckon I am guilty of murder.

But that’s neither here nor there now, Missus Henry. Seeing as how it's forty years on since then, but that don't lessen what I done. The fact is, killin's wrong no matter the season and I guess that’s why I'm writin' this here letter; to tell what I know. And what I saw. Perhaps it'll put to rest the why's and what for's I'm sure you've been askin' all this time. I know some folks’ll think forty three years is too much time gone by for my recollections to be uncolored by the lies I've tole others, and to myself. Forty-three years is a long time, I guess, but I swear what I'm goin' to tell you is true. I wished many times these past years that it wasn't or that I might ferget, but curse God, I remember ever detail.

Your husband was a good man, Missus Henry, but I reckon you already knowd that. But it's important I recognize it to you. When we was kids, John and me were friends. We was the same age, John and me. Our daddy’s worked at Moultries Lumber together, though I don't doubt my Pa received a better wage on account he was white. But we was just kids and didn't understand such things.

My Ma used to always say that I would live to be a hunnert years on account I was born at the turn of the century. My ma used to say that made me special but prison don't have much patience for those that think theyselves special. There ain't no place for anything but time here. And your husband deserved more ‘n he got. He should’a had the chance to see fifty; see his children come into their own. I don't reckon you'd disagree with me on that account.

Did you know we was raised together? His Ma looked out for me almost as much as myown. I remember getting just as many whuppin's from her as from my own, and I remember my Ma thanking her for doin' it. Knowin’ the rascals me and John was, I reckon we both deserved 'em.

We was happy kids. But in all the years I've spent here I can't quite put a finger onjust when things changed or when it was exactly that we went our own ways. But I think now it must've been when me and John heard ol' Mr. Moultrie call John's Pa a no good lazy nigger. I didn't rightly know what a nigger was, 'cept it was bad. We was only ten or so, but I laughed so hard my jaw pure hurt. I didn't know enough to understand that John 'd be offended. Ever other man my pa knew called your folk niggers, so I thought that’s what you was. But John and I was never close after that.

I never unnerstood how one set of folks could call theyselves one thing, and another set say they’s somethin' else, though I’ve come to unnerstand that no one ever agrees on everthin'. I guess that’s what comes with bein' an indivijul. White folk have always been white, but it seemed for many years, your folk couldn't seem to make up they mind as to just what they wanted to be. Negro, Colored, Black, they's all the same, or so I used to think. But as I look back on it now, those words just describe a white man's idea of what a black man is. An if'n the truth be known, we only know how to be what we are. I no more unnerstand what it is to be black than a black man unnerstands what it's like bein' white, and we hate each other for it; for the strangeness of it all. But that don't make it right.

There’s a lot of hatin' in the bible, Missus Henry, but I reckon you already know that seein' as how you're a church goin' woman; Missus Hargraves tole me that in the letter she sent me to tell me about my Ma's passin', but I've come to learn that hate is not what the bible's about, despite it bein' full of hate an war. That's just histry. God had to remind us of what we was before he could git us to see we couldn't be good on our own, or just how much we needed him so's we could be what we might if'n we was better people; to change what we might otherwise've become.

It's hard to love, Missus Henry. It's even harder to forgive. But Jesus was a good man, the only really good man to ever live. But I reckon you know that too.

I've learned a lot here in prison, Missus Henry. I learned that the face you show to the world ain't always what’s really there. You gotta be tough to survive here. That’s true whether you're locked up or not, but I feel it's time that you knew the truth of what happened that day. What really happened and not what was told at court. I'm dyin', Missus Henry. Cancer done ate up near everything I can honestly call my own, but not the truth. That I swear.

The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

If Barack is truly saved we can thank God almighty. Not pastor Wright.

Barack wants us all to believe he is Christian, and his father and grandfather both being devout Muslims is the impetus of said want. I can't fault him there. America IS, after all, a nation built upon a Christian foundation. America IS a nation still playing, at the very least, lip-service to Jesus Christ. And America IS a nation at war with an ideology that glorifies death and martyrdom, that kills innocents for the sake of bloodshed, and uses mentally handicapped women, and infants in strollers, as human bombs. That is what America typically thinks when it hears the word "Muslim." Right or wrong, that's primarily what Americans think.

But Barack Obama is a Christian, and he doesn't want you to forget it.

He spent twenty years in the same church knowing his pastor was a liar, a racist, and a hate-monger. He accepted reverend Wright despite his graceless stance on several issues. That, I suppose, was a very Christian thing to do. Or was it?

Barack and Michelle were married by reverend Wright, and when their children came along, reverend Wright baptized them. But into what faith? A faith of lies, racism, and hatred for ones fellow man? Or the faith of true Christianity that says we are to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Did Barack once question his pastor about the lies he told from the pulpit, that white America invented the AIDS virus to infect black America? That America was founded on Racism? That America is the number one killer in the world? That the U.S. caused 9/11? That Jesus was a black man? [He wasn't, but what does it really matter? A lie is still a lie] That all the problems of the world are the fault of "white folks' greed."?

What about Obama's insistence that he did not attend his pastor's hate-filled sermons? Did he as much admit to lying to the American people this morning by saying some of his pastors' statements from the pulpit made him uncomfortable?

What kind of Christian sits on a pew for twenty years soaking up hate and lies from his pastor? What kind of Christian allows his children to be raised in such an environment? What does it say about the Christian who assigned a hate-monger an advisory role on his campaign for President?

What kind of Christian indeed!

What would Jesus have done? Would He have sat still in His seat when his under-shepherd repeatedly used His name in vain... from the pulpit!? Would He have sat still while His under-shepherd distorted truth and told blatant lies? Would He have sat still while His under-shepherd spewed hatred for his fellow man?

Do I have to answer that?

Well, why then did Obama sit for twenty years on a pew under the tutelage of the "reverend" Jeremiah Wright? No one sits that long under the instruction of any pastor unless he largely agrees with what his pastor preaches. Christians flee churches every week for the slightest and pettiest of insignificant reasons, but Obama sat for twenty years. Even allowing his children to hear "reverend" Wright's messages of "Hope."

After spending twenty years at his master's feet, just what kind of "Hope" can we expect senator Obama to give us? What kind of "Change?" What kind of "New Direction?"

I can't say much for Obama's brand of Christianity. Nowhere in the Bible does it instruct us to spend twenty years under the instruction of a pastor that spews hatred and lies.

But then, no one is perfect. I'm certainly not. I daily do things I shouldn't, as do we all. But twenty years, unmoving in the face of contempt and falsehood......

...

And I have given myself quite a bit to reflect upon. As I said, neither am I "perfect."

Googling the term I came across 6600 references, so I can only assume that the term is relatively new in terms of broad usage. What it means, basically, is the use of short passages of scripture to prove specific desired doctrines. Typically the proof-texted passages are pulled out of context, or otherwise stretched to derive meaning that clearly does not exist in the verse's original context.

Interestingly enough, the only people I've encountered who use this term are those whose bona fide's as a Christian are at best suspect. I say 'Suspect' because much of their own conjectured doctrines rely themselves upon towers of proof-texts, if not pure thin air.

For example, to suggest that the early church proof-texted Jesus into the Old Testament prophecies surrounding the Messiah is to suggest that Christianity is false. It calls into question the veracity of the entire New Testament, and Salvation by Grace alone (which, by the way, is clear Bible doctrine).

[I really don't know where I'm going with this. I'm as much following the whim of a muse as I am a white hare down a very long dark hole. But that's not entirely fair, as my muse at least is merely nudging me in "a" direction, as opposed to "leading" me anywhere... let alone into the bowels of the 'madness of Hatters and Jabberwockys.' Which is where much of bona fide-lacking Christians dwell.]

Jeremiah said the heart is desperately wicked, and deceitful above all things. Paul said that those who, having professed themselves wise (becoming fools in the process); who have likewise changed the glory of God to suit an image more familiar... an idol of the heart better suited to desires of the flesh, have been given over to a reprobate mind. For those who would slap the elegantly simple Gospel of Jesus Christ upon a wheel of fleshly desire; to shape it anew (and strangely devoid of hope), there is a veil of blindness that covers their eyes. They are blind to the truth. Simplicity is lost on them because the convolutions of their own handiwork hold both greater sway and meaning for them.

One educator at a well-respected Seminary (whom I will not identify at present), rejects the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ because 'she' cannot wrap her mind around the idea of a man dead three days rising to new life-- it was a spiritual resurrection. But the Gospel is not rendered false simply because one cannot 'wrap one's mind around it.' We walk by faith, not by sight. Jesus said to Thomas, "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." And it was in that spirit that Jesus prayed for us who, nearly two millennia later, would likewise also believe:

Neither pray I for these [His disciples] alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word...

Their word. Their testimony. And for those who wrote to the Churches, their Epistles.

Too much is taken for granted on both sides of the ideological fence. On the Left, that the scriptures are clear about nothing; and on the right, that the scriptures say more than they do. Where then is the truth? Whose shibboleth reigns supreme?

Revelation 22:18 says,

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.

And for those on the Right, they take that to mean the ENTIRE Bible, though the verse clearly states the prophecy of this book... the book of Revelation. I do not say those on the right are wrong, for while every verse has but one contextual meaning-- it means what it says where it says it, in context --yet many verses too have more than a single application.

Contrary to what those on the left believe, the Gospel is NOT fraught with ambiguity. No. It is quite clear, and clearly supported by the whole of New Testament scripture:

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures...

This passage is also quite clear-- The Gospel consists of the following:

a) Christ died for our sins b) He was buried c) He rose again the third day

If one is to believe the Gospel (and be saved) one must believe that Jesus died for his sins; that he was buried; and that He rose again the third day. One must believe Jesus rose from the dead to be saved. There is no ambiguity here. Romans 10:9 concurs:

[I]f thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved...

No ambiguity here either. And yet there are some who will nonetheless steadfastly proclaim that scripture is 'clear about nothing.' --If I may wax parabolic [adj]: "They cling to tufts of grass at the cliff's edge--" tuft's, I might add, that are unclear... i.e., Phantoms.

How can one believe in Jesus, and be saved by His amazing unmerited Grace, if the scriptures are unclear? On any subject?

The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Who is, and who is not Christian? The man who sowed wheat knows. In the meantime, we grow together until the harvest (which is sooner than most believe). And having shared the same fertile earth as the wheat will not grant the tares a reprieve from the fire. Not all who say, "Lord, Lord" unto Him will enter in. Not all who sit on a church pew... Doer's of the word, not hearers.

How fair is it to point to the "crimes of Christianity" during the crusades, as justification for Muslim outrage toward the West today; Christendom in particular? Too many people ignorantly point to the Crusades and say,

"See! Christianity has no room to talk about Radical Islam! What about Radical Christianity!? Yeah! So there!"

Do these people [whom I precipitously called "ignorant"] have a valid point?

Tacking into the wind, what about Israel? What about all these same people castigating Israel for not responding "proportionally" to her tormentors? What obligation does a society have toward its own survival? If any? How long does a populous have to wait before they can legitimately not only defend themselves but take the fight into the heart of their oppressors?

Four-hundred sixty-three years.

Now, I did use the word "ignorant" precipitously. Guilty as charged. I had intended to use it in summation, but never fear, you'll see it again.

[T]he 463 years between the death of Muhammed in 632 AD, and the First Crusade in 1095, were extremely dangerous for Christian Europe. Instead of peace there were unrelenting Islamic wars and incursions; Muslim invasions of Spain, Italy, Sicily and Sardinia; raids, seizures, looting of treasure, military occupations that lasted until Saracen forces were forcibly dislodged, sackings of Christian cities including Rome, and desecrations of Christian shrines. And be it noted: all this went on for 463 years before any Christian Crusade in response to these murderous provocations took place.

Sixteen years after the death of Muhammed, in 648 AD, Cyprus was overrun. Rhodes fell in 653, and by 698 AD the whole of North Africa was lost. In 711 Muslims from Tangier crossed into Spain, set their sights on France, and by 720 AD Narbonne had fallen. Bordeaux was stormed and its churches burnt in 732. As Gibbon emphasised, only the resistance at Poitiers of Charles Martel in 732 saved Europe from occupation, and arrested the Muslim tide.

From 800 on, incursions into Italy began. In 846 a Saracen force of 10,000 landed in Ostia, assaulted Rome, and sacked and desecrated the Basilicas of St Peter and St Paul. In 859 they seized the whole of Sicily. After capturing a fortress near Anzio, Muslim forces “plundered the surrounding countryside for forty years”. In southern France at the end of the ninth century they held a base near Toulon from which they ravaged both Provence and Northern Italy, and controlled the passes over the Alps, robbing and murdering pilgrims on their way to Rome. Genoa was attacked in 934 and taken in 935. In 1015 Sardinia was taken, occupied, and held my Muslim forces until 1050.

In 1076 the Seljuk Turkish capture of Jerusalem finally exhausted the patience of Islam’s victims in Christian Europe. Only then were concerted moves begun to drive back the infidel, launch the First Crusade, and retake Jerusalem.

Israel still has another 403 years to go before they can legitimately take the fight to Islam. That gives Israel's neighbors 403 years to perfect their rocket-making skills... 403 years to rain said rockets down upon innocent men women and children... 403 years for Israel's enemies to develop and acquire nuclear or, God forbid, worse technologies just so they can annihilate an ethnicity that WANT's to live in peace with its neighbors... Hmmm.

What about America? If we consider the start of hostilities between Islam and the U.S. to have begun, say, with the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979, America still has 434 before she can legitimately take the fight to Islam. So what that some 3000 people were murdered by Islam on 9/11. We still have 434 years before precedent says we can strike back. Bush therefore is a war criminal. This administration is guilty of war crimes against the Religion of Peace. Even then we won't be immune from the criticism of ignorants.

But let's classify that word here and now. Ignorant, i.e., uninformed in terms of what should be basic historical knowledge and reference.

Those who want to accuse Christianity of having been equally horrific in its past, toward Islam, aren't taking into consideration the number 463. Not because two wrongs don't make a right, but because they're ignorant of the first wrong. Christian Europe showed 463 years of restraint. Islam is lawless and knows no restraint. But again, two wrongs don't make a right. We must learn to understand Muslims before we can deal with them fairly or justly. Never mind that they consider such, in us, as a weakness to exploit.

No one, however, has suggested Muslims learn to understand us. For 463 years Islam didn't care to understand Europe, Africa, or Asia Minor. When they were driven back they still didn't care to understand. All they understood was that they were driven back by infidels. Christian Europe. Infidels. Islam licked its wounds and bided its time. And that time is now.

The question now is, do we wait another 434 years to deal with Islam as they have dealt with us?

From an ethical standpoint the crossover vote inspired by Rush Limbaugh aiding Hillary Clinton and potentially undermining the candidacy of Barack Obama is at a minimum offensive. Thinking more long-range I would argue that it is time for Black America to embrace and adopt the strategy. Paying homage to one of the more effective proponents it should be known as “Rushing the Vote.”

Republicans will no longer be able to ignore the Black vote if even 10 or 20% of us crossover - Rush the Vote – to decide the Republican nominee or wreaking havoc in their primaries. It will also break the stronghold that the Democratic Party has had for far too long proving that our vote should not be taken for granted.

If for any reason Barack Obama is not the Democratic presidential nominee Black voters will have a perfect opportunity to Rush the Vote in November and we will be credited with the McCain victory.

It should be noted that Black Republicans such as WAOK’s Shelley Wynter have advocated this sort of swing strategy for years. Now that the effectiveness was proven in Texas and Ohio let’s plan to Rush the Vote whenever it is in our best interest.

It was okay for Democrats to cross the aisle early on and decide the Republican nominee, but now many Democrats are decrying Rush's suggestion that Republicans do the same in Ohio and Texas. Well, what's good for the goose...

Here then is an African American woman who suggests Blacks to the same come November if Obama is not the Democrat nominee-- if Hillary, by virtue of her cabal of super-delegates, steals the nomination.

Is prostitution truly a victimless crime? In Eliot Spitzer's case, should he not hold himself to the same standard he held others to when he was attorney general? Because prostitution is "no big deal" in Europe should we likewise view Mr. Spitzer's "indiscretion" as he would like... as a private matter? What does it say about a nation that desires to excuse such "indiscretions," considering the vow one makes when marrying? If the vow of marriage means nothing to a man or woman, how are we to believe that any other vow they make means anything to them? Since Mr. Spitzer is a super-delegate for Hillary Clinton, will she support Mr. Spitzer, or repudiate him; especially in light of her own personal history with infidelity? Is it hypocritical and dishonest for one major New England Newspaper to neglect mentioning Mr. Spitzer's party affiliation, throughout the entire article, yet in the very same point out that Senator Larry Craig was a Republican?

Is there no shame left in American politics? Is there no shame left in the American people?

Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture (and by video, I mean every form of digital media, as well as older electronic ones); a disjunction between Americans' rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism.

...nearly half of Americans between ages 18 and 24 do not think it necessary to know the location of other countries in which important news is being made. More than a third consider it "not at all important" to know a foreign language, and only 14 percent consider it "very important."

The problem is not just the things we do not know (consider the one in five American adults who, according to the National Science Foundation, thinks the sun revolves around the Earth); it's the alarming number of Americans who have smugly concluded that they do not need to know such things in the first place.

Personal Note: Scary, but it's not like I couldn't see it. I just couldn't verbalize it! Another problem, too, as I see it, is TMI-- Too Much Information! With a plethora of related facts, opinions, and sources, it takes better than an above average mind to distill it all into a cohesive report. I'm not saying Miss Jacoby has done this, but she has managed to articulate something that has bothered me for quite awhile.

Nor am I selling my own intellect short. You wouldn't believe how many times I've had to shorten a post simply to keep you people reading. And that's the long ones! I remember one post months back where in comments ER complained about how long it was! Sometimes there's simply too much to distill.

Have you ever looked with dread upon a task you absolutely HAD to do, but were overwhelmed by the enormity of it? Imagine that applied to a society of ignorants. Or a culture of vapid self-absorption.

Nearly 40 years on Wall Street, plus 12 years before that working for a major oil company, equals a lifetime of experience for Charles T. Maxwell, senior energy analyst at Weeden & Co., known as the “dean of energy analysts.” Now, in an interview that sounded like a preliminary draft of a valedictory address, Princeton and Oxford-educated Maxwell has laid out in stark, uncomplicated terms what might be called the “Nightmare on Main Street” that he sees barreling toward America and the world.

Every investor needs to pay attention to Maxwell’s nightmare scenario, because if the dean’s forecast is correct, it’s going to influence every investment decision made for at least the next 10 to 20 years. As we’ll see in this four-part series, although Maxwell sees much pain being inflicted on consumers and investors, he also sees opportunities to make a lot of money.

It all boils down to this, Maxwell told EnergyTechStocks.com: We live in a world where there is only about 1.2% more oil available each year, not enough to keep up with 1.5% annual demand growth. Between now and 2010, this supply shortfall will be made up through a drawdown in inventories, helped out by a slowdown in demand in 2008 and 2009 due to a recession or near-recession in the U.S.

But in 2010, Maxwell said, the shortfall will become greater than can be made up by what’s still in inventory, and thus will begin a long period of global oil scarcity that will get worse starting in 2012 or 2013, which is when Maxwell foresees a “peak” in conventional oil production. It gets even worse in 2015, which is when he expects a peak in the production of all liquids, a category that includes condensates, tar sands oil and biodiesel.

Maxwell described the period 2010 through 2015 as the “letting down” of production. In 2015, he said, the all-liquids peak arrives, after which production “starts down,” even as demand continues up. He added that production will start down even though new oilfields will go into production, and even if there is only a 4.5% average annual depletion rate from existing fields, which is what Cambridge Energy Research Associates has optimistically concluded. (Others believe the depletion rate is significantly higher.)

As the nightmare worsens, Maxwell sees cities in many countries where people depend on kerosene having to do without this life-sustaining fuel. If this prediction of Maxwell’s turns out to be correct, one can easily imagine a sharp rise in the number of environmental immigrants flooding into the more developed countries in Europe and Asia. This could lead to excruciating social unrest that produces outbreaks of violence, as some experts have already predicted.

When will the nightmare end? Maxwell said that by 2025, “We can create some answers.” He explained that both plug-in electric vehicles and cellulosic biofuel made from garbage are “wonderful ideas”; however, given that it takes 10 to 15 years or longer to turn over the world’s vehicular fleet, such technological breakthroughs won’t happen quickly enough to prevent the nightmare from happening.

Which leaves unanswered the question of greatest importance in most people’s minds: how high is the price of gasoline going to go?

...who hasn't read the Sermon on the Mount in quite a while. Nor Roman's for that matter.

On the topic of same-sex unions:

I think that there are genuine differences of opinion in this area.

I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage.

But I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them.

I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in the hospital or transfer property to each other.

I don't think that it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state.

If people find that controversial, then I would refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think, you know, is in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.

That's my view.

He goes on to speak about abortion... But as to the above statement:

Firstly, we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves. That includes homosexuals.

Secondly, there are laws already on the books that protect homosexuals from discrimination. The objections many evangelicals have in regard to "gay rights" is the creation of a protected class based solely on sexual preference. That and the fact that such recognition puts the God-preferred model of marriage on equal par with what God clearly calls abomination.

Thirdly, we are commanded in Romans 13:1-2 to obey the laws and leaders placed over us, reinforcing the above point...

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Also...

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.--Matthew 22:21

Thus far, believe it or not, I was on the same page with Obama. That is, until he uttered this ridiculous statement:

If people find that controversial, then I would refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think, you know, is in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.

In reality, Romans 1 is far more clear in terms of homosexuality, than the Sermon on the Mount, but to be fair, a look at the Sermon on the Mount is in order.

...

Well. Sorry. Nothing even remotely referencing homosexuality. Lot's of love your neighbor kind of stuff, but I already pointed that out. But here's an interesting passage:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. --Matthew 5:17-20

So Leviticus still stands, for the unsaved in particular. What about this statement:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.--Matthew 7:21-23

That's a frightening prospect, no? To believe you served the Lord all your life, followed the Ten Commandments, prayed and all, only to hear... "Depart from me..."

If the Holy Spirit was given in part to guide us in all truth, where then has Obama gone wrong? What spirit is he listening to? Can America afford such a man in the White House?

Again, just to be fair, Jesus DID tell us to love our neighbors, and not to hate our brother without cause. And speaking to that, their sin is not cause enough to hate them. Not according to the book I'm reading.

But a funny thing happened while reading the Sermon on the Mount... no mention whatsoever, obscure or otherwise, of homosexuality. The Sermon on the Mount does not mention this sin that the Law... fulfilled in Jesus... condemns. That sin is paid for ONLY if the homosexual repents and turns away from said sin.

My response to the homosexual is to be one of demonstrable love, i.e., acceptance as a creation of God, but not as a homosexual. This demonstrable love must include the presentation of the Gospel-- Ezekiel 33:8 speaks quite clearly to this.

So my problem isn't with Obama's desire to be accepting and loving toward same-sex couples. No. But I DO have a very serious problem with his characterization of Romans 1:24-27 as being "obscure." It is anything but.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Recompense of their error? AIDS perhaps? HIV? Herpes? The physical destruction of their personal health? To say nothing of the destruction of their souls! But God still desires they receive His son for the remission of their sin.

What about Jude 1:7-8?

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Good Grief! can it be any plainer? Apparently not to senator Barack Obama.

A song has been rattling in my head the last few weeks-- an entire album, actually. I can't say much for Neil Young accept every artist, real or wannabe, has moments of genuine inspiration, and Harvest was Neil's one shining moment. Nothing he has done, before or after, in terms of whole compositions [albums], shines as bright.

And there is a line from Harvest that shines brightest...

As the days fly pastwill we lose our graspOr fuse it in the sun?

I'm not sure I can put a finger on just what it is about this album that so tenaciously resides in my soul's musical museum of recollection, but there is a quality to its tone, its heart, its... agony... that touches me very deeply. I can relate to much of what I hear, if not the lyrics themselves. It's as though Neil's voice were made for this one collection of songs.

Other songs have likewise taken up permanent residence in my soul'sl museum, for single lines of verse...

I hope the Russians love their children too

--Sting, Russians

Some things take so longSo how do I explain?When not too many peopleCan see we're all the sameAnd because of all their tearsTheir eyes can't hope to seeThe beauty that surrounds themIsn't it a pity?

--George Harrison, Isn't it a Pity

The lines of my earth, so brittle, unfertile, and ready to die.I need a drink, but the well has run dry

--Sixpence None the Richer, The Lines of my Earth

Sometimes I feel like I'm the loneliestof all creatures in the universe

--Klaatu, Loneliest of Creatures

I had you and my poetry to protect me...

--Red Rider, White Hot

And so many others...

Speaking strictly from my perspective of this side of the river, I hope I still retain them on the other side.